Andre Dawson elected to MLB HoF...Mark McGwire not

[Deberg_1990]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100106/...o_hall_of_fame




NEW YORK – Andre Dawson was elected to the Hall of Fame on Wednesday in his ninth try, while Bert Blyleven and Roberto Alomar fell just short of earning baseball's highest honor.

Dawson received 420 of 539 votes in voting announced by the Baseball Writers' Association of America, 15 more than the 75 percent necessary to gain election. The eight-time All-Star outfielder had fallen 44 votes short last year.

"It was well worth the wait. I can't really describe the elation," Dawson said during a telephone conference call. "If you're a Hall of Famer, eventually you're going to get in, no matter how long it takes."

Blyleven had 400 votes (74.2 percent), up from 338 last year, and the pitcher will likely get in because he has two more tries on the BBWAA ballot. The highest percentage for a player who wasn't elected in a later year was 63.4 by Gil Hodges in 1983, his final time on the ballot.

"Hopefully, next year will be my time," Blyleven said in an interview on MLB Network.

Alomar received 397 votes (73.7 percent) in the second baseman's first appearance and was followed by pitcher Jack Morris with 282 (52.3 percent), a big rise from his 237 last year.

"I feel disappointed, but next year hopefully I make it in," Alomar said at his home in New York. "At least I was close."

Cincinnati shortstop Barry Larkin, also making his first appearance, was on 278 ballots (51.6 percent), followed by reliever Lee Smith at 255 (47.3 percent) and slugger Edgar Martinez at 195 (36.2 percent). Martinez, on the ballot for the first time, is viewed as an early test of how voters will receive players who were primarily designated hitters.

Mark McGwire received 128 votes (23.7 percent), 10 more than last year and matching the total from his first two times on the ballot. Eighth on the career list with 583 homers, he has been stigmatized since evading questions from Congress in 2005 about steroids use.

McGwire was hired in October as St. Louis Cardinals hitting coach and is expected to hold an introductory news conference at some point.

Dawson will be inducted July 25 at Cooperstown along with manager Whitey Herzog and umpire Doug Harvey, elected last month by the Veterans Committee.

Dawson hit 438 homers in a career that spanned from 1976-96. Nicknamed "The Hawk," he was voted NL Rookie of the Year in 1977 with Montreal and NL Most Valuable Player in 1987 with the Chicago Cubs, the first member of a last-place team to earn the honor.

A victim of owners' conspiracy against free agents after he left the Expos, Dawson signed a blank contract with the Cubs during spring training. Then-general manager Dallas Green filled in the dollar amount of $500,000, making Dawson the second-lowest paid regular on the team.

Dawson stayed with the Cubs through 1992, then spent two seasons apiece with Boston and Florida. He had a .279 career average with 1,591 RBIs and 314 steals, playing through 12 knee operations.

He is one of only three players with at least 400 home runs and 300 stolen bases, joining Barry Bonds and Willie Mays.

The close calls for Blyleven and Alomar marked the first time in BBWAA balloting that two players fell fewer than 10 votes short in one year.

Alomar received the most votes of any first-year candidate who wasn't elected.

Next year's ballot also will include newcomers Rafael Palmeiro, Juan Gonzalez, Larry Walker, Jeff Bagwell, John Franco and Kevin Brown.

[Frazod]

McGwire should have manned up at the congressional hearing and admitted what he did instead of sniveling and tap-dancing around the truth like a pussy. Giambi did it right. I wish Mac had done the same.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Personally, I don't think he's a HOF, period. He's HR numbers, and not much else.

Now, to your question, I think he would have produced similarly without steroids - he hit what, 50 HR's as a rookie?

He also won a gold glove, got on base at an absurd clip, had a stellar batting eye and developed into a pretty solid all-around hitter and excellent run producer.

I wouldn't vote for him because of what he came to symbolize, but don't underestimate who he was as a player, either. He wasn't just a 'roid freak - he hit 49 HRs as a skinny rookie. Nor was he a mindless slugger like Dave Kingman or Rob Deer.

McGwire was a very dangerous offensive presence for a number of reasons, not just the HRs.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by rageeumr

Rob Neyer has him as the 12th best player of the 00's. That kind of surprised me.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?id=4740695

I'd suggest that he belongs ahead of Rolen and Helton on that list, Jeter as well if you consider the fact that Jeter's a pretty miserable fielder. On closer inspection, I'd put him ahead of Beltran (Carlos had speed on Edmonds and that's it, Edmonds was a more dangerous hitter and a better fielder based on virtually any metric) and right alongside Chipper Jones.

For a guy that gets such a bad rap for 'preening'; Edmonds has been incredibly underrated for the bulk of his career.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Personally, I don't think he's a HOF, period. He's HR numbers, and not much else.

Umm...what else is there to go on besides numbers???

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Umm...what else is there to go on besides numbers???

Re-read that.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

He also won a gold glove, got on base at an absurd clip, had a stellar batting eye and developed into a pretty solid all-around hitter and excellent run producer.

I wouldn't vote for him because of what he came to symbolize, but don't underestimate who he was as a player, either. He wasn't just a 'roid freak - he hit 49 HRs as a skinny rookie. Nor was he a mindless slugger like Dave Kingman or Rob Deer.

McGwire was a very dangerous offensive presence for a number of reasons, not just the HRs.

I wouldn't call a career .263 hitter "solid" but I can get on board with your other points.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I wouldn't call a career .263 hitter "solid" but I can get on board with your other points.

Like I said 'developed into'.

There's no doubt that early in his career he was an all/nothing hitter.

But look at his batting averages from 1995 through 2000 - .274, .312, .274, .299, .278, .305

That's 5 seasons of being a .285 hitter - I'd say that qualifies as 'solid' for a guy that drew 100 walks/season as well.

[penchief]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I'd suggest that he belongs ahead of Rolen and Helton on that list, Jeter as well if you consider the fact that Jeter's a pretty miserable fielder. On closer inspection, I'd put him ahead of Beltran (Carlos had speed on Edmonds and that's it, Edmonds was a more dangerous hitter and a better fielder based on virtually any metric) and right alongside Chipper Jones.

For a guy that gets such a bad rap for 'preening'; Edmonds has been incredibly underrated for the bulk of his career.

Jeter's not as bad an infielder as some claim. That said, Jeter will make the hall based on his offensive numbers and his rings. Intangibles are hard to measure but you can't talk about Jeter without talking about how clutch he's been both at the plate and in the field when it's mattered most.

[RJ]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Nobody really considers him in that breath, but then you have to look at what he did from 1995-2006.

Thanks for your posts, they were interesting - and I was a little bored at work.

Like you, I'm not sure I'd cast a HOF vote for him, but I do see now that he's a better player than I had given him credit for. If he had 300 steals or 400 HR he'd have a better chance. Those are the kind of "sexy" stats the voters love. Dawson's 400/300 along with an MVP and a ROY helped in overlooking mediocre career numbers in BA and OBP.

[RJ]

Originally Posted by penchief

Jeter's not as bad an infielder as some claim. That said, Jeter will make the hall based on his offensive numbers and his rings. Intangibles are hard to measure but you can't talk about Jeter without talking about how clutch he's been both at the plate and in the field when it's mattered most.

I always read about him being a defensive liability, yet I've seen him make so many big plays in the field. Or maybe it just seems that way cause the fuggin Yankees are on TV so often.

[Halfcan]

Baseball is scraping the bottom of the bucket lately-nothing against dawson-but the ballot looks like a pack a ball cards you used to get-lots of names not much value-lol

[penchief]

Originally Posted by RJ

I always read about him being a defensive liability, yet I've seen him make so many big plays in the field. Or maybe it just seems that way cause the fuggin Yankees are on TV so often.

No, you're correct. He makes a lot of great defensive plays. The knock on him has been his range. But he was a lot healthier this year and it showed with his improved range in the field.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by penchief

Jeter's not as bad an infielder as some claim. That said, Jeter will make the hall based on his offensive numbers and his rings. Intangibles are hard to measure but you can't talk about Jeter without talking about how clutch he's been both at the plate and in the field when it's mattered most.

"clutchiness"

Jeter's post-season slash stats -- .313/.383/.479; OPS of 863

Edmonds post-season slash stats -- .274/.361/.513; OPS of 874

And Jeter's 'clutch' moments, while there are many, aren't any more incredible than Edmonds'. The Cardinals wouldn't have won a pennant in 2004 or 2006 without him, or the WS in 2006. Not to mention their runs in 2001 and 2002. Pujols was a metronome, but when the Cardinals were really making noise, it was because Jim Edmonds was on his game. Folks outside of STL don't really realize this, but it's absolutely true.

Jeter's a product of being in 138 post-season games by virtue of playing for a team that prints its own money. Now he's still a HOFer because he's a superlative offensive SS, but CF is really the OF version of SS, both players are incredibly important to the defense. Defensively, it's no contest; Jeter's average at best while Edmonds rates historically well.

Offensively they're simply much different players, but Edmonds more than holds his own and is, IMO, the more valuable offensive player over the course of their careers. Jeter's a top of the order hitter playing in front of the best lineup in baseball and still doesn't score as many runs per AB as Edmonds did. Edmonds has more RBI than Jeter in 2000(!) fewer ABs. Jeter was clearly a base-stealer wheras Edmonds was not, but if the point in stealing bases is to get in scoring position, wouldn't those SBs be offset by the fact that Edmonds was still the superior run-scorer? He was certainly a better run-producer. Even if you don't think Edmonds was clearly a better offensive player (though I don't see how), they're obviously in the same ballpark.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Jim Edmonds would be a MFing GOD had he played in the Bronx. They're comparable from a 'clutch' standpoint, comparable from an offensive standpoint and there's no contest when it comes to defense.

It really is critical to recognize that all these #s weren't coming from some flash in the pan left fielder or lumbering 1b. These came from arguably the best defensive CFer in baseball (again, based on the Bill James fielding bible and other metrics, not to mention ones own eyes). To get that combination of elite offense and superb defense from such an incredibly important defensive position only happens a couple of times/decade.

All told, Edmonds was underappreciated throughout his career.

[Kyle DeLexus]

Wait there's a Middle Linebacker Hall of Fame?

[chefsos]

Dawson was the best player in the game before that concrete turf in Montreal wrecked his knees.

I don't have any stats handy to back this up, but it's true.